I don't know what THEY use it for, but I'd really like to use it for quantum calculations of large chemical systems where a huge bunch of integrals have to be solved.
> Didn't want you to think I've been ignoring your post, but I've become ridiculously busy.
I wasn't thinking that (I understand you have a lot work to do).
While I consider this discussion to be finished just two more responses:
> My first point was that mutations / genetic changes may take place PRIOR to copying, not solely IN copying.
Agreed. First the change in the DNA then the copy error (Cause eg alkylated DNA doesn't propagate to following generations with the alkyl group still attached. But the alkyl group may cause a 'read error' possibly resulting in a base to be chosen different from the one carrying the alkyl group)
> Add up enough such changes, especially in an isolated population, and you have speciation
As I stated before that's the point that I doubt heavily but let's agree to differ.
> Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc.
Well, viruses could possibly do the task I guess, requires of course creation of the virus in front. But that's not the point. When you're talking about outside agents like radiation or chemicals: what is the way they do the mutation? They alterate the DNA (Alkylation, 2+2 Cycloadditions...) so that it cannot be read correctly anymore, but the basic set of bases ATGC remains the same after copying. So the statement 'In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations' still holds true, no matter what caused the errors. > Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient
Could you give an example for this?
> [...] light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection.
OK, the way I understand this, the dark and the light coloured moths were out of the same species weren't they? And the existence of these variations is due to mutation, or am I completely mistaken?
> Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best".
The only thing which seems pseudo-scientific to me is your way of leading a discussion.
P.S.: Sorry for double posting - this time readable.
> By moving from paper magazines to web-published journals they can cut distribution costs enormously
Yes and also printing costs; the group I'm working is about to publish an article in Nature Materials (already accepted). They had to pay a few hundred dollars to support the printing of the coloured figures and also 200 $ for a copyrighted figure (which I guess they would have had to pay anyway).
Despite these facts I'm not quite sure whether it's really an advantage to have all the publications accessible via net only. (Although I can't think of any except for 'having a nice properly printed hardcopy in your hands' right now)
> Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc.
Well, viruses could possibly do the task I guess, requires of course creation of the virus in front. But that's not the point. When you're talking about outside agents like radiation or chemicals: what is the way they do the mutation? They alterate the DNA (Alkylation, 2+2 Cycloadditions...) so that it cannot be read correctly anymore, but the basic set of bases ATGC remains the same after copying. So the statement 'In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations' still holds true, no matter what caused the errors.
> Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient
Could you give an example for this?
> [...] light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection.
OK, the way I understand this, the dark and the light coloured moths were out of the same species weren't they? And the existence of these variations is due to mutation, or am I completely mistaken?
> Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best".
The only thing which seems pseudo-scientific to me is your way of leading a discussion.
Re: Two Christian creation myths
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Actually I read it about two weeks ago. I don't see two different reports here. The first one (Genesis 1) is a general one. The second one (Genesis 2) includes more details in particular concerning the creation of man.
Do you see a contradiction here?
Re:Fish, breathing fish, hoping fish, not fish.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
It's a pity you do not understand German, but I'll try to translate the difference between micro- and macro-evolution for you (source)
The DNA-molecule has got the ability to copy itself with the help of certain polymerase enzymes in a way that 'daughter-threads' have got the same sequence of nucleotides as the 'matrix-threads'. In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations. This is the molecular mechanism of Darwinian 'alteration of genetic material'. Through mutation, selection and isolation new species are said to have evolved (macro-evolution) and within one species adaptive changes according to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. But forming of a _new species_ requires formation of _new genes_. New genes are additional pieces in the macromolecule DNA. Their formation and installation is a synthesis reaction called polycondensation. Kann this happen through mutation? Short answer: 'no'.
Of course this answer is reasoned, but I don't have the time to translate all this. (At least not now)
Micro-evolutionary processes are mostly processes of optimization.
German version from here
Das DNS-Molekul hat die Fahigkeit, sich mit Hilfe von speziellen Polymerasen-Enzymen so zu verdoppeln, dass die Nukleotidreihenfolge der Tochterstrange dieselbe ist wie die der Matrix-Strange. Es kann zu Kopierfehlern kommen: Mutationen. Das ist der molekulare Mechanismus der Darwinschen Erbgutanderungen. Durch Mutation, Selektion und Isolierung (Restabilisierung) sollen sich (der von Darwin begrundeten Evolutionstheorie zufolge) immer wieder neue Arten gebildet haben (Makroevolution) und innerhalb der Arten Anpassungen, adaptive Veranderungen. Die Entstehung neuer Arten setzt die Entstehung neuer Gene voraus. Neue Gene sind neue Kettenstucke des Makromolekuls DNS. Ihre Entstehung, ihr Einbau, ist eine Polykondensation genannte Synthesereaktion. Kann sie durch Mutation erfolgen? - Dazu wieder Bruno Vollmert, die Fortsetzung seines bereits oben zitierten Radiovortrages Was Darwin nicht wissen konnte und Darwinisten nicht wissen wollen. Seine Antwort ist Nein. Im folgenden die Begrundung.
[...]Mikroevolutive Vorgange sind meist Optimierungsvorgange.[...]
Re:Darwinism is NOT A RELIGION!
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
Why I think Darwinism IS a religion: Darwinism as being based on the concept of evolution (which AFAIK is not proven) is something you have to BELIEVE in because the only thing you have is a theory (supported by IMHO vague evidence) raised to a dogma.
I know there is a thing called 'micro-evolution' which is something we can observe. But it is _extremely_ unlikely that even many, many steps of micro-evolution do (although it seems to be very convincing for most people) result in something called 'macro-evolution'. Now I don't make up this by myself but that's rather what I've heard in a talk by a Microbiologist (Professor Siegfried Scherer). He gave a nice mathematical example which I don't recall in detail (concerning the numbers he mentioned but you can read it here [hope I got that html tag right] under 5b, given that you understand german.). It says that it is very unlikely for an 'irreducibly complex organ' like a microbial motor we would call simple to evolve by chance. And even if the parts of the motor would evolve, there's still no mechanism implemented to build up that motor which makes the 'spontaneous forming' even more unlikely. So we're talking about microbes, remember, and dub ourselves a more complex lifeform... just decide for yourselves: is this really something you can KNOW or do you have to BELIEVE in these unlikely events to have brought about what we call life?
Re:Don't let the religious zealots see this story.
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I don't believe you really do have a lot to do with scientists - they can be pretty stubborn even though they dub themselves open minded.
Re: Two Christian creation myths
on
Fish with Limbs
·
· Score: 1
I also don't know which second 'version' you're referring to - maybe you could cite which verses you mean... Apart from that I do believe the creation story is to be taken literally - it's just too much a complex act that we can even imagine it really occurred like it is written. As for the 'Cain's-wife-thing' - that's something I've asked myself too. But the answer is simple: Cain's wife must also have been his sister - that's not a contradiction at all. In those days this wasn't a problem yet. So just because not every birth of every human alive then is mentioned does not mean they didn't exist. After all people were told to crowd the earth - so wasn't like it is nowadays where families tend to have 1 - 3 children...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what THEY use it for, but I'd really like to use it for quantum calculations of large chemical systems where a huge bunch of integrals have to be solved.
I remember those ... but scanning & fooling aroung with some graphic program also does the job
So - you do have too much free time? Let's switch!
> Didn't want you to think I've been ignoring your post, but I've become ridiculously busy.
I wasn't thinking that (I understand you have a lot work to do).
While I consider this discussion to be finished just two more responses:
> My first point was that mutations / genetic changes may take place PRIOR to copying, not solely IN copying.
Agreed. First the change in the DNA then the copy error (Cause eg alkylated DNA doesn't propagate to following generations with the alkyl group still attached. But the alkyl group may cause a 'read error' possibly resulting in a base to be chosen different from the one carrying the alkyl group)
> Add up enough such changes, especially in an isolated population, and you have speciation
As I stated before that's the point that I doubt heavily but let's agree to differ.
> Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc.
Well, viruses could possibly do the task I guess, requires of course creation of the virus in front. But that's not the point. When you're talking about outside agents like radiation or chemicals: what is the way they do the mutation? They alterate the DNA (Alkylation, 2+2 Cycloadditions...) so that it cannot be read correctly anymore, but the basic set of bases ATGC remains the same after copying. So the statement 'In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations' still holds true, no matter what caused the errors.
> Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient
Could you give an example for this?
> [...] light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection.
OK, the way I understand this, the dark and the light coloured moths were out of the same species weren't they? And the existence of these variations is due to mutation, or am I completely mistaken?
> Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best".
The only thing which seems pseudo-scientific to me is your way of leading a discussion.
P.S.: Sorry for double posting - this time readable.
> By moving from paper magazines to web-published journals they can cut distribution costs enormously
Yes and also printing costs; the group I'm working is about to publish an article in Nature Materials (already accepted). They had to pay a few hundred dollars to support the printing of the coloured figures and also 200 $ for a copyrighted figure (which I guess they would have had to pay anyway).
Despite these facts I'm not quite sure whether it's really an advantage to have all the publications accessible via net only. (Although I can't think of any except for 'having a nice properly printed hardcopy in your hands' right now)
> Not quite. Mutation also occurs through the action of outside agents - viruses, radiation, etc. Well, viruses could possibly do the task I guess, requires of course creation of the virus in front. But that's not the point. When you're talking about outside agents like radiation or chemicals: what is the way they do the mutation? They alterate the DNA (Alkylation, 2+2 Cycloadditions...) so that it cannot be read correctly anymore, but the basic set of bases ATGC remains the same after copying. So the statement 'In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations' still holds true, no matter what caused the errors. > Blatantly untrue. New genes are NOT required to create a new species; rearranging existing genes or their expression is quite sufficient Could you give an example for this? > [...] light-coloured pepper moths were harder to spot against the bark of the trees on which they typically hung about. Once the Industrial Revolution's coal smoke darkened trees and buildings, the dark-phase moths came to dominate the species. That trend has reversed itself as the chemical composition of air pollution has changed. No mutation was necessary for this example of evolution through natural selection. OK, the way I understand this, the dark and the light coloured moths were out of the same species weren't they? And the existence of these variations is due to mutation, or am I completely mistaken? > Not to worry, though; the bits that you quoted were enough to convince me that your source is pseudo-science at its, um, "best". The only thing which seems pseudo-scientific to me is your way of leading a discussion.
Actually I read it about two weeks ago. I don't see two different reports here. The first one (Genesis 1) is a general one. The second one (Genesis 2) includes more details in particular concerning the creation of man. Do you see a contradiction here?
It's a pity you do not understand German, but I'll try to translate the difference between micro- and macro-evolution for you (source) The DNA-molecule has got the ability to copy itself with the help of certain polymerase enzymes in a way that 'daughter-threads' have got the same sequence of nucleotides as the 'matrix-threads'. In the process of copying errors may occur: mutations. This is the molecular mechanism of Darwinian 'alteration of genetic material'. Through mutation, selection and isolation new species are said to have evolved (macro-evolution) and within one species adaptive changes according to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. But forming of a _new species_ requires formation of _new genes_. New genes are additional pieces in the macromolecule DNA. Their formation and installation is a synthesis reaction called polycondensation. Kann this happen through mutation? Short answer: 'no'. Of course this answer is reasoned, but I don't have the time to translate all this. (At least not now) Micro-evolutionary processes are mostly processes of optimization. German version from here Das DNS-Molekul hat die Fahigkeit, sich mit Hilfe von speziellen Polymerasen-Enzymen so zu verdoppeln, dass die Nukleotidreihenfolge der Tochterstrange dieselbe ist wie die der Matrix-Strange. Es kann zu Kopierfehlern kommen: Mutationen. Das ist der molekulare Mechanismus der Darwinschen Erbgutanderungen. Durch Mutation, Selektion und Isolierung (Restabilisierung) sollen sich (der von Darwin begrundeten Evolutionstheorie zufolge) immer wieder neue Arten gebildet haben (Makroevolution) und innerhalb der Arten Anpassungen, adaptive Veranderungen. Die Entstehung neuer Arten setzt die Entstehung neuer Gene voraus. Neue Gene sind neue Kettenstucke des Makromolekuls DNS. Ihre Entstehung, ihr Einbau, ist eine Polykondensation genannte Synthesereaktion. Kann sie durch Mutation erfolgen? - Dazu wieder Bruno Vollmert, die Fortsetzung seines bereits oben zitierten Radiovortrages Was Darwin nicht wissen konnte und Darwinisten nicht wissen wollen. Seine Antwort ist Nein. Im folgenden die Begrundung. [...]Mikroevolutive Vorgange sind meist Optimierungsvorgange.[...]
Why I think Darwinism IS a religion: Darwinism as being based on the concept of evolution (which AFAIK is not proven) is something you have to BELIEVE in because the only thing you have is a theory (supported by IMHO vague evidence) raised to a dogma. I know there is a thing called 'micro-evolution' which is something we can observe. But it is _extremely_ unlikely that even many, many steps of micro-evolution do (although it seems to be very convincing for most people) result in something called 'macro-evolution'. Now I don't make up this by myself but that's rather what I've heard in a talk by a Microbiologist (Professor Siegfried Scherer). He gave a nice mathematical example which I don't recall in detail (concerning the numbers he mentioned but you can read it here [hope I got that html tag right] under 5b, given that you understand german.). It says that it is very unlikely for an 'irreducibly complex organ' like a microbial motor we would call simple to evolve by chance. And even if the parts of the motor would evolve, there's still no mechanism implemented to build up that motor which makes the 'spontaneous forming' even more unlikely. So we're talking about microbes, remember, and dub ourselves a more complex lifeform... just decide for yourselves: is this really something you can KNOW or do you have to BELIEVE in these unlikely events to have brought about what we call life?
I don't believe you really do have a lot to do with scientists - they can be pretty stubborn even though they dub themselves open minded.
I also don't know which second 'version' you're referring to - maybe you could cite which verses you mean...
Apart from that I do believe the creation story is to be taken literally - it's just too much a complex act that we can even imagine it really occurred like it is written.
As for the 'Cain's-wife-thing' - that's something I've asked myself too. But the answer is simple: Cain's wife must also have been his sister - that's not a contradiction at all. In those days this wasn't a problem yet. So just because not every birth of every human alive then is mentioned does not mean they didn't exist. After all people were told to crowd the earth - so wasn't like it is nowadays where families tend to have 1 - 3 children...